You're fine LP and thanks for your interest.

This thread is made upon ideas, findings and a very deep interest about this complicated game where we didn't take anything as granted.
Therefore our strategies are mainly based upon statistical findings applied to volatile productions very often improperly labeled as "randomly distributed".

Whether is impossible to read randomness (providing each trial to be as perfectly independent from the previous one), we know that distributions sooner or later will take more likely distributions in relationship of the actual shuffling factor.

The problem of moderate/strong unrandomly shuffled shoes is that it's more difficult to spot an "average" key card distribution along with math advantaged hand ranges, in a sense high/low cards are more clumped than expected by running a true random model.

Of course if a given strategy works at perfect random or close to perfect random shoes, anything different than that (unrandom world prevails) might be attacked by a kind of opposite method. So maybe privileging more the SYMMETRICAL less likely feature.
But doing this we could find ourselves in the unwanted world of full uncertainty unless a same shoe is shuffled several times by the same biased procedure.

So players thinking that every shoe dealt in different circumstances will be distributed by the same random features actually commit a big mistake erasing a possible edge.

more later

as.

Try it, very good for double dozens

"I'll take not just one step, but two steps forward with the knowledge you've shared. However, your theory is quite challenging. I think it'll take some time to fully grasp and apply it to my betting strategy, probably because your level is very advanced. Even so, I truly appreciate the insights you've provided. I'll take some time to make them my own, and once I do, I'll follow up with any questions I have."

This version keeps the meaning intact while making it flow smoothly in American English. Let me know if you'd like any further tweaks! 😊

Believe me, you can't be wrong by properly exploting the asymmetry.

Say we want to adopt a multilayered progressive scheme.

We have three different fictional players betting for us.

#1 will constantly betting toward clustered asym spots up to a loss, then he'll wait for a new asym situation to restart the betting.

#2 will wait for a symmetrical spot to show up (sometimes it'll take quite a long time and that should give you the idea of what I'm talking about) then wagering toward one asym spot then stops its action letting #1 to restart the betting.
If he loses, #3 come in play.

#3 will wait for TWO asym spots to show up then wagering toward one asym spot then stops its action letting #1 to restart the betting.
If he loses, the action is stopped for every player (#1, #2 and #3) until a fresh asym spot shows up.
And so on.

After each player had lost three times in a row, we'll raise the bet for that specific player by a 10% or 20% amount knowing that the only harsh "enemy" spots making ALL three players to lose in a row are those forming one asym isolated spot followed by three (or more) symmetrical spots.

When such unlikely thing happens (all players losing) we have reasons to even double our standard bet then staying at this betting level until a full recover happened.

In fact asym-sym-sym-sym-...-asym situations coming out in a row are just an exception.

See you next week

as.

A personal test for bac randomness

Our group is made by frequentist probability lovers, in the sense that we like to collect data coming out from the same exact source and then building a probability theory.

Even the "same source" concept could be a volatile definition: think about shuffling machines operating at two alternate shoes lasting for a X time (number of shuffles per each shoe).
We've found important differences if the same shoe did undergo one or two shuffles or multiple shuffles.

Therefore if we want to exploit the "average" card distribution tool, we want to play at properly shuffled shoes.
Remember the comparison with black jack: low cards-neutral cards-high cards decks (in any LNH sequence) completely deny a card counter math advantage.
Of course such situation could easily happen for natural reasons, but we never know if it seem to appear for "too much" long.

At baccarat we've personally devised two valuable main tools to take care of in order to approximate whether a shoe is really randomly shuffled or not.

a) the math advantaged two-initial cards points losing "too many times" despite of their math propensity to win;

b) a higher than average ratio of hands resolved by 6 cards.

Of course those are the two main factors, there are other minor parameters to look for.

Realize that there's no way to win at baccarat itlr if our bets will get the inferior 2-card initial point as the number of drawouts will be underdog to get a long term edge.
Thus whenever the drawouts are coming out "too often", we theorized that that shoe was improperly shuffled. So unplayable.

Hands resolved by 6 cards is an additional factor to look for and is related to the high neutral card density (more than 30%) along with the 6s,7s,8s and 9s class (again more than 30%), then to  other less likely card combinations forming natural points as 5-4, 5-3, 4-4 or standing points as 5-A, 5-2, 4-3, 4-2 or 3-3.

Card distributions not forming those situations AT BOTH SIDES for long are relatively rare and when they're not (that is they are coming out too often) we could assume a kind of randomness bias.

Paradoxically it's better to move around a strong good or strong bad choice than navigating into a more undefined world where too many cards will dictate the actual result.
That's because an overalternating shifted world will be the least situation to happen.

as. 

IMO at baccarat the only reason why we could win is because of the more likely card distribution ranges.
The actual results do not necessarily be the by product of more likely card distribution ranges as (beyond the natural variance) there still exists the important factor regarding the shuffling more or less randomness.

Our data had taught us that a perfect randomness or a slight defect of randomness will go to our favor as best represents the "more likely card distribution" ranges.

Bad shuffled shoes need too much complicated algorithms to be resolved (approximated) and of course we never know how "bad" a shoe is shuffled and more importantly the more probable patterns to look for.

In poor words, we'll win a lot or lose a lot when shoes are badly shuffled with 0 impact of skills, whereas perfect random or near perfect random shoes will give us plenty of informations to draw on.

more later

as.   

Haven't been following the Roulette game lately but I'll take a look at the Nolley Molly play and see what it has to offer.

AD

If anyone out there who still uses this forum, anyone playing the Nolley Molly on the dozens?

I should think that this article was written by some kind of AI or some other stuff.

Missouri's gun laws give the owners of various establishments the "right" to post signs prohibiting firearms on the premises but MUST be displayed in an official manner.  If not, one only needs to ask the offending person to leave.

If they leave, no harm, no foul and the owner can further restrict the offending person as they see fit.

Sticking a gun into the back of a player in front of casino patrons seems so far fetched that if true, all three "security" officers should be fired and the guy sticking the gun in the back of the player should be sued.

There are laws for drawing a firearm, especially for security guards, and that was way out of line.

Which brings me to the start where I said this is probably a made up story to go with the article.

I can guarantee you that if some security guy jams a gun in my back because he saw my holster at the bac table, I'll be owning the table's profits for the next 20 years.

Andy
Florida class "D" security license
Florida class "G" armed security license.

And a whole bunch of other gun related licenses from many other states that most people don't even know exist.

At baccarat the definition of asymmetry and symmetry is particularly intricated for several reasons:

- the model is slight asymmetrical at the start (B>P)

- the model is affected by a huge first-step asymmetrical distribution of cards, specifically of key cards

- the model is affected by a huge second-step asymmetrical distribution of third(s) card(s)

- the model is finite and dependent, meaning that each situation (hand dealt) won't cross through the exact same parameters.

Overall and simplifying the issue, we might infer that symmetrical events are just "incidents" made along the way.
After all statistics give us plenty of examples where asymmetry will lead over the symmetry, the latter now intended as a steady expected probability happening for long.

Actually at baccarat there's no symmetry involved other than by coincidental factors and when some low levels of asymmetry are surpassed, more often than not a slight subtle force will shift the results in order to deny a kind of "balanced" results.

Therefore the rule to follow is expecting "low levels of asymmetry": whenever this rule seems to be "violated" best action to make is staying still (no betting) or to wager that the lowest levels of asymmetry will remain as silent.

After all we have strong reasons to think that cards are randomly arranged to get more asymmetrical patterns than symmetrical patterns and when this isn't true is just for a temporary and coincidental short term effect.

Examples of typical asym or sym patterns

ABAA = asym
ABA  = sym

AABBB = asym
AABBA = sym

AAABA or AAABBA = asym
AAABBB = sym

Overall we could accept the idea that asym=sym, yet we should be more interested about how many sym events will shift into asym events or vice versa and, more importantly, at which level of asymmetry or symmetry. Per every shoe played.

Now we might use a formula based upon that asym-asym > asym-sym; sym-asym > sym-sym for the most probable asymmetry/symmetry levels of apparition (0, 1 and 2).

We know that an asym/sym/asym sequence lasting for long is the least occurence to happen and the same is about long sym/sym successions.
The remaining probability world is what we should be interested to focus about as proportionally taken (remember the 0.75 probability to happen) asym/asym..., sym/asym and sym-sym/asym patterns are way more probable to naturally come out so maybe enticing (I've sayed "maybe" as a simple flat betting scheme will get the best of it) a multilayered progressive scheme actioned by one or more two losing sym sequences happening at different sections of the shoe.

Assigning a 0.75 general winning probability to a asym/sym independent model, the average expected W/L ratio is 3:1, so unbeatable for the vig or P asymmetrical probability.
In reality baccarat slightly endorses the asym patterns formation in the way that each asymmetry level will be more probable than the symmetry counterpart.
Naturally the sure asymmetry will make coincidental symmetrical patterns along the way, that's why  we have to restrict their appearance by assigning or not them to a more likely sequences category.

I know, that's all rattlesnake.sh.it.
Fortunately. 

as.